Oh, for the days of Al Capone when Chicago gangsters were gangsters and ran around with Tommy guns and cool hats. [You're carrying on that tradition.-ed. Part of it.] This new group has little style and not a lot of babes either. Still, there’s one good thing coming out of the Blagomuck – anyone still believing in that “hope and change” nonsense is a certifiable nitwit. The Obama Administration is business as usual and then some. No matter what comes out of the Rahm Emanuel involvement, whether in the end it turns out our Rahm of the “21 conversations” was a “hero,” wearing a wire to nail the creepy Blago, does anyone believe this brother-of-an-agent is the guy who should be the number one aide-de-camp of the President of the United States? Well, maybe if he wants to make a movie with Tom Cruise. [But wouldn't it be unseemly for the President to work with a Scientologist?-ed. Obama will talk with anyone. Don't you remember?]
What I found amusing in the Chicago Trib article linked (first) above is that Emanuel, putatively the President-elect’s porte-parole, already has a porte-parole of his own, here called an “Emanuel source” – a leaker of a leaker. Will this leaker then need a leaker for him or herself? We will soon see, but my bet is that whatever happens he or she will stay anonymous. [Wait a minute. I thought this was the administration of the new transparency.-ed. Come on. You can do better than that.]
I’m beginning to take it back. Maybe there is a musical in all this, but a comic one. The “Emanuel source” can go trooping around the stage like a ghost in a white sheet – or maybe dressed in black like a ninja.
Shall we write the bedroom dialogue for Barack? It begins with this line to Michelle: Sweetie, if I fire Rahm, does it make me look weak? (Your turn from there.)
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
14 Comments
1. Jamie Irons:Roger,
In my unassailable ignorance and naivete, I actually had hopes for Emanuel, as I had read that he was a (sort of) hawk on Israel, and I had hoped (ha ha) that he might restrain Obama’s hopey-changey attitude toward the Palestinians…
Oh, well…
Jamie Irons
Dec 17, 2008 - 8:00 am 2. Roger L Simon:Jamie Irons, yep… too bad.
Dec 17, 2008 - 8:02 am 3. Jamie Irons:Furthermore (and I’m sure others more observant than I have noted this) it alarms me that even before our PEOTUS is formally enshrined, he and his associates are sucking up so much of the news cycle, and not in a good way…
Jamie Irons
Dec 17, 2008 - 8:03 am 4. cfbleachers:Does anyone believe that Rahm went to Blago, completely on a frolic and lark of his own doing? That he had a personal interest all of his own to make Valerie Jarret a senator?
Does anyone believe that Valerie’s sudden withdrawal and “disinterest” in the position, didn’t seem a bit abrupt and the “appointment to the White House, seem a bit rushed? Almost as if someone had tipped someone off about the impending disaster? You know, in “cleanup squad” mode?
Wouldn’t the elimination of Rahm from the picture, as he is chucked off the plane as the fall guy…make it much easier to light the pathway for the Walt & Mearsheimer crowd to “reduce the influence of the Zionists”?
The bedroom scene sounds like this: Sweetie, if I throw Rahm under the bus, in order for you to have your girlfriend in the White House, won’t that look like a personal favor to you?”
“Barack, it’s not personal, it’s business. If you don’t want four years of lonely nights in the Lincoln bedroom, Rahm falls on his sword and Val gets protection from the family.”
Dec 17, 2008 - 8:12 am 5. Mike_K:I dunno. I hear Barry and Rahm are an item. Can’t see him going under the bus unless it is really serious. Sort of like Rev Wright.
Dec 17, 2008 - 9:14 am 6. Kevin:When it comes to Barry’s political survival, everyone is a candidate for testing of the bus’ suspension.
Dec 17, 2008 - 9:26 am 7. David Thomson:“…as I had read that he was a (sort of) hawk on Israel”
Rahm Emanuel was also a member of the childishly naive Clinton administration—and it is responsible for the murders of countless Israelis. Good intentions are simply not enough. Their heads were not screwed on tight. At the end of the day, Barack Obama is probably a self hating American. Israel and the United states have supposedly victimized the dark skin people of the world. We must therefore beg their forgiveness and embrace policies premised on appeasement. Emanuel will unlikely do anything to put a stop to this nonsense.
Dec 17, 2008 - 9:40 am 8. Steve Y:Plus ca change:
2008: Look on the bright side, Rahm is a tough SOB who will restrain the worst excesses of the leftwing crazies.
2003: Look on the bright side, Saddam is a tough SOB who will restrain the worst excesses of the Iranian mullahs.
Dec 17, 2008 - 9:50 am 9. Wellspring:It’s the chief of staff’s job to be the bad guy for the administration. The CoS says NO, and the President says YES. This is how it works. Then, when the chief of staff builds up a long enough enemies list or the President comes under heavy enough attack, the chief falls on his sword for his exec.
This is a nasty, thankless job. But Emanuel could well set the record if he goes through that whole cycle before his boss is even inaugerated. I was very skeptical when I heard Obama denying contact with Blag; how could he possibly claim he hadn’t discussed his replacement in a nearly veto-proof caucus? So no surprises here.
The media won’t cover for him until the re-election campaign. Until then, he can’t simply hide from scandal. He’d have been smarter to lay out the facts early, while the press was still reporting that “Obama has nothing to do with this.”
Dec 17, 2008 - 10:42 am 10. David Thomson:Rod Blagojevich must be a secret Republican. He is truly God’s gift to the GOP. The dude apparently cannot be forced out of office until he is convicted in a court of law—and he has no intention of leaving anytime in the near future. Is it possible that this madness could continue for at least the next twelve months?
Dec 17, 2008 - 11:16 am 11. CR:“anyone still believing in that “hope and change” nonsense is a certifiable nitwit.”
Well, the election IS over…
A certain Senator, after his 70-100 years on this mortal coil, went before the Heavenly Court. The judges told him that he would get to vote for his preference in an afterlife. First they showed him “Heaven”; a searing hot, barren desert with stinging winds, dust devils and tumbleweeds blowing about. Then they showed “Hell”; a verdant garden teeming with colorful flowers, tall trees and singing birds. Naturally, the senator chose Hell. When he got there he was presented with a barren desert. “Hey!” he cried to his escorts, “this isn’t what you showed me before!”
“Oh yeah, that was just inartful, overheated campaign rhetoric.”
Dec 17, 2008 - 1:10 pm 12. Mike_K:Actually, that Senator was from Texas and what he said was: “With a little better climate and a little better class of people, this would be just like home.”
Dec 17, 2008 - 1:58 pm 13. Barry Dauphin:With Obama’s, “Don’t waste your question” comment, I guess we’ll be seeing a lot of the audacity of nope.
Dec 17, 2008 - 3:18 pm 14. Fred2:If Rahm gets thrown under the bus, who replaces him?
I wouldn’t bet, though, on either Rahm or Barack being as dumb as Hot Rod.
Besides, as long as it’s somebody in the Senate seat who’s reasonably loyal as a Democrat, why would they care who? They’ve got bigger fish to fry now and were on the glidepath up and out of Illinois politics.
Dec 18, 2008 - 12:34 pm